ENGINEER BEN Y. LIM, et al. v. HON. SULPICIO G.

GAMOSA, Officer-inCharge, NCIP REGIONAL HEARING OFFICE REGION IV, and TAGBANUA
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITY OF BARANGAY BUENAVISTA,
CORON, PALAWAN, as represented by FERNANDO AGUIDO et al.
G.R. No. 193964, 02 December 2015, Perez, J.
The IPRA emphasizes customs and customary law to govern in the lives of the
ICCs/IPs. It, however, recognizes that customs and customary law cannot be
applied to non-ICCs/IPs since ICCs/IPs are recognized as a distinct sector of the
Philippine society.
In Cruz v. DENR, Custom, from which customary law is derived, is also
recognized under the Civil Code as a source of law x x x. Customary law is a
primary, not secondary, source of rights under the IPRA and uniquely applies to
ICCs/IPs. Its recognition does not depend on the absence of a specific provision
in the civil law.
FACTS.
Respondent Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community of Barangay Buenavista,
Coron, Palawan filed a petition before the National Commission on Indigenous
People (NCIP) against petitioners for Violation of Rights to Free and Prior and
Informed Consent (FPIC) and Unauthorized and Unlawful Intrusion with Prayer for
the Issuance of Preliminary Injunction and TRO.
Despite a motion to dismiss being a prohibited pleading under NCIP
Administrative Circular No. 1-03, petitioners moved to dismiss the petition on the
ground, among others, that NCIP lack jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
petition because petitioners are not members of the ICC/IP. The NCIP, however,
resolved to deny the motion to dismiss. Likewise, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the NCIPs denial and reasoned out that from the wording of Section 66 of the
IPRA, the NCIP was bestowed with an all-encompassing grant of jurisdiction over
all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs and that the requirement in
the proviso contained in the section i.e. obtaining certification from the Council
of Elders/Leaders that the parties had exhausted all remedies provided under
their customary law prior to the filing of an action, applied only to instances
where both parties were members of an ICC/IP. In all, the Court of Appeals
upheld that when a claim or dispute involves rights of the ICCs/IPs, the NCIP has
jurisdiction over the case regardless of whether the opposing party is a nonICC/IP.
Petitioners thus filed this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE.
Does the NCIP have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant case?
HELD.
NO. SECTION 66 of the IPRA is exclusionary, specifically excluding disputes
involving rights of ICCs/IPs where opposing party is a non-ICC/IP. This provision
reflects IPRAs emphasis of customs and customary law to govern in the lives of
the ICCs/IPs. In fact, even the IPRA itself recognizes that customs and customary
law cannot be applied to non-ICCs/IPs since ICCs/IPs are recognized as a distinct
sector of the Philippine society.

The limited or special jurisdiction of the NCIP, confined only to a special cause
involving ICCs/IPs, can only be exercised under the limitations and circumstances
prescribed by the statute.
Former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, in his separate opinion in Cruz v. Secretary
of Environment and Natural Resources, emphasizes the primacy of customs and
customary law in the lives of the members of the ICCs/IPs:
Custom, from which customary law is derived, is also recognized
under the Civil Code as a source of law x x x. [I]n the absence of any
applicable provisions in the Civil Code, custom, when duly proven, can
define rights and liabilities.
Customary law is a primary, not secondary, source of rights under the IPRA
and uniquely applies to ICCs/IPs. Its recognition does not depend on the
absence of a specific provision in the civil law. The indigenous concept of
ownership under customary law is specifically acknowledged and
recognized, and coexists with the civil law concept and the laws on land
titling and land registration.
Once again, the primacy of customs and customary law sets the
parameters for the NCIPs limited and special jurisdiction and its consequent
application in dispute resolution. Demonstrably, the proviso in Section 66 of the
IPRA limits the jurisdiction of the NCIP to cases of claims and disputes involving
rights of ICCs/IPs where both parties are ICCs/IPs because customs and
customary law cannot be made to apply to non-ICCs/IPs within the parameters of
the NCIPs limited and special jurisdiction.
Clearly, the phraseology of all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs
does not necessarily grant the NCIP all-encompassing jurisdiction whenever
the case involves rights of ICCs/IPs without regard to the status of the parties, i.e,
whether the opposing parties are both ICCs/IPs.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is granted. The NCIPs Resolution is reversed and set
aside and respondents may refile their complaint against petitioners in a court of
general jurisdiction.